And like that fight from the worst movie of the series, we have the next round of the Prop. 8 battle, with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals set to hand down its ruling on the matter today at 10am PST. Both the Sacramento Bee and NPR will be following the decision, as well as various other outlets, no doubt:

My god, someone shoot the god damn Californian politicians. They seem to be at the forefront of restricting rights and freedoms at the broadest level. California vs ESA ******** now this is still alive somehow.

It's not so much our politicians as it is that CA has a big, red target painted on its back, being one of the more progressive US states. During the last Prop 8 fiasco, fundimentalist organizations were actually bussing in protestors from out of state as a publicity stunt.

I'm not saying we dont have more than our share of knuckle-draggers in CA, but because CA is seen as a "liberal hotbed" it's often targeted for political statement-making through litigation, and used as sort of an in-joke and code word among right wingers.

Case in point, remember how many times in the last presidential campaign was "San Francisco Politics" was as a euphemism for gay rights activists?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As sad as it is that we have to vote for equality, I hope that we're a tolerant enough society to practice what we preach.

At the moment, I'm more interested in seeing what kind of tripe we get from Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum.

Click to expand...

Romney: I'm against the ruling. No, I'm for the ruling. Nevermind, I'm against the ruling.
Gingrich: Marriage is only between one man and multiple women. This ruling destroys the sanctity of open marriages across the country.
Paul: Blah blah blah, states rights, blah blah blah, gold standard. Why won't anyone pay any attention to me?
Santorum: Now the gays and blah people will want to marry animals and plants and inanimate objects. And please stop Googling me.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As sad as it is that we have to vote for equality, I hope that we're a tolerant enough society to practice what we preach.

romney: I'm against the ruling. No, i'm for the ruling. Nevermind, i'm against the ruling.
Gingrich: Marriage is only between one man and multiple women. This ruling destroys the sanctity of open marriages across the country.
Paul: Blah blah blah, states rights, blah blah blah, gold standard. Why won't anyone pay any attention to me?
Santorum: Now the gays and blah people will want to marry animals and plants and inanimate objects. And please stop googling me.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.".

It's certainly encouraging progress. Now the timing of a U.S. Supreme Court showdown in an election year should be sensational to say the least.

Click to expand...

If they even take the case. It could be a non-event at the Supreme court level. This case was ruled on a very narrow scope (i.e. specifically Californian's unique situation with this case) so the SCOTUS might not even take up the case at all and just return it to the state leaving things as they are and allowing marriages to go forward (again). NJ and Washington could also soon join the equality bandwagon bringing the state total to 9 plus D.C. covering roughly 1/5 of the entire country's population (per CNN).

The closed minded people in the NOM group are going to have their hands full with all of that. LOL

The stay on marriages remains in effect until seven days after either an appeal is denied or the appeal deadline expires, whichever is first. A part of the appeal will no doubt be an extension on the stay.

The main unconstitutionality ruling was 2-1. Two additional findings, first that the Prop. 8 proponents do have standing to appeal on behalf of the state without the AG's support, and second upholding the ruling against throwing out Walker's ruling on the basis of his sexual orientation, were unanimous.

The ruling was actually somewhat narrow, covering only California, despite the Court having authority over the western states. The broader question of whether any state may amend its Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages was explicitly not addressed. The court needed only to address whether the specific path California took to get there was constitutional, and found it was not.

On the other hand, affirmation of Walker's ruling, and explicit support for his findings of fact, means that his ruling can be used as a reference for challenges to gay-bashing laws in other districts.

Next, Prop 8. supporters may seek an en banc hearing before a broader panel of 9th Circuit judges. All 20+ 9th Circuit judges discuss and vote on this appeal, and if a majority votes in favor, then 11 judges are randomly selected to form the appeals panel, new briefs will be filed, and essentially we replay the whole appeal. Whether the whole circuit thinks that's an exercise worth pursuing is anyone's guess. Proponents can theoretically ask for an en banc hearing before the entire 9th Circuit, but of the few such requests ever made, none has been granted.

Additionally, or if the en banc appeal is denied, proponents may appeal directly to the Supreme Court. At this point I'm inclined to guess that odds are somewhat poor that the SCOTUS will grant cert. This case now has a combination of strong rulings narrowly applied and contentious social issue in a progressive state that the court won't want to touch for as long as they can avoid it. In fact, I think the "California-only" provision is practically a graven invitation for the SCOTUS to deny cert. They'll wait and see what sorts of ripple effects the ruling has across the rest of the country.

Remember, if you were watching paint dry, you'd've been done months ago. It's a good day, but yeesh, justice is anything but swift.

It's certainly encouraging progress. Now the timing of a U.S. Supreme Court showdown in an election year should be sensational to say the least.

Click to expand...

Although if SCOTUS decides to hear this case, the actual arguments probably won't be heard until 2013 at the earliest, and a decision could be published as late as mid-2014. Of course that assumes there won't be an en banc hearing first. That can add almost a year to this whole thing.

I really do wonder how eager SCOTUS will be to hear this case in the next few years. It's a risky bet for both sides of the political spectrum, hinging all on Kennedy. Reinhardt wrote a very careful ruling, limiting his decision only to California. The four reliable conservatives on the Court might decide to sit this case out and "contain" the issue rather than risk a large loss based only on their confidence in Kennedy. Similarly the four liberal justices might want to be cautious and not risk setting the issue back by a decade or more.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.